DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 07/28/2025 has been entered. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 4, 6 and 9 are currently amended. Claims 3 is cancelled. Claims 10 – 12 are newly added. Thus, claims 1 – 2 and 4 – 12 are currently pending. Applicant’s arguments regarding the Non-Final Rejection on 05/19/2025 are fully considered (see “Response to Arguments” section) and the following Final Rejection is made herein.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first fixing part”, “a first guiding part”, “a second fixing part” and “a second guiding part” in claim 1. “part” being the generic place holder preceded by functional languages of “a first fixing”, “a first guiding”, “a second fixing” and “a second guiding” respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Thus,
“a first fixing part” is interpreted to mean any slot or groove (e.g. bayonet slot) that cooperatively fixes to or couples to a buckle, and equivalent thereof, (see § 0032 – 0033 and FIGS. 4 and 5).
“a first guiding part” is interpreted to mean any male protrusion (e.g. convex rib) that matingly fits to a corresponding female groove and equivalent thereof, (see § 0029 – 0032 and FIGS. 4 and 5).
“a second fixing part” is interpreted to mean any elastic snap fit buckle that cooperatively fixes to or couples to a slot or a groove and equivalent thereof, (see § 0032 – 0035 and FIGS. 4 and 5).
“a second guiding” is interpreted to mean any female groove that matingly fits to a corresponding male protrusion (convex rib) and equivalent thereof (see § 0029 – 0031 and FIGS. 4 and 5).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 and 5 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Hyung et al. (WO 2012036432 A2) and hereinafter “Hyung”.
Regarding claim 1, Hyung discloses an air fryer (cooking vessel with a detachable handle used in a microwave oven or in a range oven, (page 1, lines 11 – 24), please *Note- the cooking vessel being “an air fryer” is intended purpose or use of the preamble that is not defining the claimed structure and not patentably distinguishing, MPEP 2111.02) comprising: a housing with a cooking cavity (a housing with microwave oven/range cavity, (page 1, lines 11 – 24)),a compartment (cooking vessel 3, FIG.3) capable of entering or leaving the cooking cavity (the cooking vessel body 3 is capable of entering or leaving the microwave oven/range cavity, (page 1, lines 11 — 24 and FIG.3)), and a handle assembled on the compartment (a handle 20 assembled on the cooking vessel 3, see annotated FIG.1 and 4) wherein:
the compartment is provided with a mounting socket at a side wall (the vessel 3 provided with a mounting socket 10 at a side wall of the vessel, see annotated FIG.1),
the mounting socket has a lateral opening, an inner side wall and a bottom wall (the mounting socket 10 having socket body 11 that has hollow portion 14 with a lateral opening, inner side and bottom walls, see annotated FIG.1 and 4),
the mounting socket is further provided with a first fixing part (upper locking jaw 15, see annotated FIG.1 and 4) and a first guide part (lower locking jaw 16, see annotated FIG.1 and 4) disposed on the inner side wall of the mounting socket and extending from the lateral opening to the bottom wall (lower locking jaw 16 extends from the lateral opening to the bottom wall of the socket, see annotated FIG.1 and 4),
the handle (handle 20, annotated FIGS. 1 and 4) is provided with an inserting part adapted to the mounting socket (inserting part of the handle comprised of corresponding coupling members 30, 40 adapted to the mounting socket 10, see annotated FIG.1 and 4), the inserting part being provided with a second fixing part (upper coupling member 30, see annotated FIG.1 and 4) and a second guiding part (lower coupling members 40, see annotated FIG.1 and 4), the inserting part of the handle is inserted through the lateral opening of the mounting socket, and the second fixing part is aligned with the first fixing part and fixedly connected with the first fixing part through a guide mating of the second guide part and the first guide part (the inserting part of the handle 20 is inserted through the hollow portion 14 of the socket body 11, wherein the upper coupling member 30 has a protrusion 31 aligned with the upper locking jaw 15 and fixedly locking with the upper locking jaw 15 through the mating of the lower coupling member 40 and lower locking jaw 16);
wherein a guide mating structure of the first guide part and the second guide part is a mating structure of a guide groove and a convex rib, the convex rib being slidably inserted into the guide groove to achieve guide mating (a mating structure of the lower coupling member 40 (convex head) of the handle 20 and a lower locking jaw 16 of the socket 10, wherein the end protrusion 43 of the coupling member slidably engages the groove of the lower locking jaw 16, see annotated FIGS. 1 and 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
675
1515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Hyung discloses the air fryer according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of the first guide parts are provided on the inner side wall of the mounting socket and are distributed at intervals (a couple of lower locking jaws 16 are provided on either side of the inner side wall of the socket body 11, see annotated FIGS 1 and 4), and a plurality of the second guide parts of the inserting part of the handle are provided and correspond to the first guide parts one-to-one (the couple of the lower coupling members 40 on the inserting part of handle 20 correspond to the couple of the lower locking jaws 16, see annotated FIGS. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, Hyung discloses the air fryer according to claim 1, wherein a fixed mating structure of the first fixing part and the second fixing part is a snap-fit structure of an elastic buckle and a bayonet (the fixed mating structure of a first fixing part and a second fixing part is a snap fit elastic coupling member 30 with a protrusion 31(buckle) and a groove of upper locking jaw 15, (page 3 lines 113 – 118 and see annotated FIGS. 1and 4)).
Regarding claim 6, Hyung discloses the air fryer according to claim 5, wherein the first fixing part is the bayonet formed on the inner side wall of the mounting socket (the first fixing part is a groove of the upper locking jaw 15, see annotated FIGS. 1and 4), and the second fixing part is the elastic buckle (the second fixing part is an elastic coupling member 30 with a protrusion 31 (buckle), see annotated FIGS. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, Hyung discloses the air fryer according to claim 6, wherein the inner side wall of the mounting socket has a guide slope at a front end of the bayonet (the inner wall of the mounting socket 10 has an inclined slope portions 17 at the front end of the grooves, page 3, lines 101 — 102 and see annotated FIGS. 1 and 4).
Regarding claim 8, Hyung discloses the air fryer according to claim 1. wherein structures of the mounting socket and the inserting part are asymmetric in a circumferential rotation direction (see annotated FIGS. 1 and 4 showing both mating mounting socket 10 and the inserting part of the handle 20 being asymmetric in a circumferential rotation).
Regarding claim 9, Hyung discloses the air fryer according to claim 8, wherein each of the mounting socket and the inserting part is in a "D" shape (see annotated FIGS. 1 and 4 showing both mating mounting socket 10 and the inserting part of the handle 20 having a “D” shape).
Regarding claim 10, Hyung discloses the air fryer according to claim 1, wherein the first guide part is the guide groove (the lower locking jaw 16 is a groove for receiving the lower coupling member 40, see annotated FIG.1 and 4), and the second guide part is the convex rib (the lower coupling member 40 is a convex protrusion/rib, see annotated FIGS. 1 and 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 and 11 – 12 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyung.
Regarding claim 4, Hyung discloses the air fryer according to claim 1, wherein the first guide pat is the groove of the lower locking jaw 16 of the socket and the second guide part being the convex coupling member 40 (rib) of the handle, see annotated FIGS. 1 and 4.
Hyung does not explicitly teach the first guide part is the convex rib, and the second guide part is the guide groove.
However, for coupling mechanisms of two corresponding guiding elements comprising a groove (female) and a convex rib (male), making the first guide part male (convex rib) and the second guiding part female (groove) or vice versa would not patentably distinguish over the prior art, as such interchanging of the coupling parts is considered a mere rearrangement of parts within ordinary skill in the art, MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to interchange the guiding mechanism of Hyung to be the first guide part is the convex rib, and the second guide part is the guide groove, as doing so is considered a mere rearrangement of parts within ordinary skill in the art that is not patentably distinguishing from the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, Hyung discloses the air fryer according to claim 5, wherein the fixed mating structure of a first fixing part (a groove of the upper locking jaw 15 of the socket body 11 *Note here – a grove or a slot that receives a buckle is interpreted to be equivalent to a bayonet slot) and a second fixing part (a snap fit elastic coupling member 30 with a protrusion 31(buckle)) of the handle 20, (page 3 lines 113 – 118 and see annotated FIGS. 1and 4)).
Hyung does not explicitly teach the first fixing part is the elastic buckle formed on the inner side wall of the mounting socket, and the second fixing part is the bayonet.
However, for coupling mechanisms of two corresponding guiding elements comprising a receiving groove (bayonet slot) and a snap fit elastic coupling member 30 (buckle), disposing one in the socket body and other on the socket handle or vice versa would not patentably distinguish over the prior art, as such interchanging of the coupling parts is considered a mere rearrangement of parts within ordinary skill in the art, MPEP 2144.04 VI.C.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to interchange the disposition of the buckle and the bayonet slot (groove) of Hyung to be the elastic buckle is formed on the inner side wall of the mounting socket, and the second fixing part is the bayonet on the handle, as doing so is considered a mere rearrangement of parts within ordinary skill in the art that is not patentably distinguishing from the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Hyung discloses the air fryer according to claim 8, wherein each mating mounting socket 10 and the inserting part of the handle 20 having a “D” shape, see annotated FIGS. 1and 4.
Hyung does not explicitly teach that the “D” shape of each of the mounting socket and the inserting part is in a trapezoidal shape.
However, the shape or configuration of a particular claimed element is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape is significant, MPEP 2144.04. IV. B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to make the “D” shape mating mounting socket 10 and the inserting part of the handle 20 taught by Hyung to be a trapezoidal shape as such modification amounts to a mere matter of design choice within ordinary skill in the art that is not patentably distinguishing.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
The amendment to claim 1 overcomes the claim objection made to the claim in the Non-Final rejection on 05/19/2025. As such, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102 &§103
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/28/2025 regarding the anticipatory and obviousness rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §102 & 103, see Remarks, page 4 – 6, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant cancelled claim 3 (previously rejected) and included the limitations into independent claim 1 and presented the following arguments.
Applicant argues Hyung discloses a kitchen container (or cooking vessel/cooking utensil) with a removable handle not a fryer that can carry out heating, cooking, baking, and frying on its own and concludes “the kitchen utensil disclosed by Hyung is NOT equivalent to an air fryer and is non-analogous to an air fryer.”
The examiner finds this argument not persuasive. As indicated in the rejection, the term “an air fryer” is only recited in the preamble and is interpreted as a preamble statement reciting intended purpose or use. Because the limitation of the positively recited structures in the body of the claims are taught by the prior art Hyung and no structural element claimed in the body of the claims is limited by the term “air fryer” (except the intended uses/functions argued like heating, cooking, baking, and frying, wherein no reference is made in any of the claims), “an air fryer” is interpreted to be a preamble statement reciting purpose or intended use. The body of the claim is evidently directed to the mounting socket of the compartment and the insertable handle of the air fryer. Thus, the term “an air fryer” is a preamble statement only reciting intended use. "where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation", MPEP 2111.02. II.
Applicant also argues “In Hyung, the fit between the upper locking jaw 15 and the coupling member 30, as well as the fit between the lower locking jaw 16 and the coupling member 40, is a locking fit. There is no structure disclosed in Hyung that aligns the second fixing part to the first fixing part by guiding the second fixing part through the guide mating structure.”
The examiner submits, as indicated in the rejection and illustrated in the annotated FIGS 1and 4, the convex lower coupling members 40 are protrusions/ribs that align to the hollow portion 14 of the socket body 11 guiding the upper coupling buckle (upper coupling portion 30) with the upper locking jaw 15. Thus, the convex protrusions 40(convex ribs) and hollow portion 14 (guide grooves) are the guide mating structures that bring upper coupling member 30 (the snap-on buckle) and the upper locking jaw 15 interlock.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761